Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.@mdashIn this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.9.03/16.1.04 passed by the
respondent No.2 whereby the appellate order was set aside and the revision was allowed.
2. The petitioner''s case is that the Tractor with Trailor No. 8489 loaded with stone was seized illegally from the leasehold area of the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he runs crusher business in the name and style of M/S Mahesh Stone Industries. For that purpose lease has
been granted to the petitioner. He possesses the valid lease document. The petitioner has been also paying royalty for the lease hold area. In the
year 2000 on the basis of a false report of Range Officer, a confiscation proceeding was imitated against the petitioner alleging that on 18.5.2000
the petitioner''s Tractor and Trailor bearing No. 8489 was seized with stone leaded from the Forest Area. The said case was registered as
Confiscation Case No. 35/2000. The petitioner denied the allegation in his reply to show cause stating, inter alia, that he petitioner holds a lease for
mining stone over an area of 70 decimal of Gairmazarua land and that the Tractor with Trailor was seized form the lease hold area. He also denied
the other allegations. The D.F.O, Dhanbad without considering the said facts and material on record arbitrarily passed an order dated 2.6.01
confiscating the petitioner''s Tractor with Tailor on the allegation that the Tractor with Tailor was transporting the forest produce in contravention of
the provisions of the Forest Acts.
4. The petitioner then preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-appellate authority. The Deputy Commissioner heard the parties
and after discussing and considering the materials on record, came to the conclusion that there was no valid ground for confiscating the petitioner''s
vehicle. The prosecution failed to prove that at the time when the said vehicle was seized, the same was carrying forest produce in violation of the
Forest Acts. The Deputy Commissioner also took into consideration that the petitioner was given a lease for mining stone and that t could not be
proved that he mined stone beyond his leasehold area and the stone loaded on the said vehicle was forest produce. The Deputy Commissioner,
thus, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the confiscating authority and directed to release the petitioner''s vehicle.
5. Against the said order, the respondents preferred revision before the Secretary, Forest and Environment Department. The said case was
registered as Revision Case No. (C)12/02. The revisional authority finally passed the impugned order dated 10.9.03/16.1.04 whereby he has
allowed the revision and et aside the appellate order.
6 Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the oetitioner, submitted that the order of the revisional authority is arbitrary and
unsustainable. Learned counsel submitted that when the respondents had alleged mining over an area within the reserved forest and had alleged
that the vehicle was loaded with forest produce, onuS was on them to prove the same. But there is no iota of evidence, ora or documentary to
establish the said allegation. Since there was no legal evidence to prove the allegation, the appellate authority had set aside the order of the
confiscating authority and directed to release the said vehicle. Learned revisional authority only on conjectures surmises and assumptions came to
the conclusion that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Forest Acts as on the arrival of Patrolling Party the petitioner had run away from
the place and did not return thereafter. The petitioner did not also assist in the enquiry, which Itself is violative of the provisions of the Bihar Mines
and Minerals Concession Rules, 1972. Only In view of the said alleged conduct of the petitioner, the revisional authority has inferred that the
petitioner has violated the provisions of the Forest Acts and his action was not bonafide. On the said ground, he has set aside the well reasoned
appellate order. The order of the revisional authority being based on no material/evidence Is wholly perverse and illegal.
7. Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned S.C-III, submitted that the learned revisional authority has passed its order on the basis of the materials on
record. There was report that some mining was being done on the forest land. The Forest Patrolling Party raided the spot and Tractor and Trailor
loaded with stone was seized. The petitioner and other had run away leaving the Truck. The petitioner has not brought any evidence to prove that
the stone was not mined from forest land. In that way the petitioner has admitted the allegations made by the respondents. There was no necessity
to further prove and establish the allegations against the petitioner.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents and materials on record. Confiscation of an article amounts to
deprivation of property. Right to property is valuable right of a citizen. Article 300A of the Constitution of India prohibits deprivation of property
save by authority of law. Confiscation of the property of a citizen cannot be made wantonly and casually unless there is cogent evidence on record
to substantiate the allegation of violation of some provisions of law. In the instant case not an iota of evidence has been brought on record to
establish the allegation that the petitioner had mined stone, loaded on Tractor & Trailor, from the area of reserved forest. Admittedly, the petitioner
holds a lease for mining over the portion of the same plot. The only allegation is that the petitioner had mined the stone from the area which was
beyond his lease hold area. The said allegation has not been established by brining any evidence on record. The Deputy Commissioner has duly
considered he said fact and the provision of law and set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Confiscating Authority. The revlsional
authority without any basis on record has acted on mere assumption and conjecture and held the petitioner guilty of violating the forest laws. He in
erred the same because the driver and the labourers, who were the occupants of the vehicle, had run away when the forest patrolling party arrived
at the place and lone of them returned thereafter to co-operate in inspection. The presumption cannot be a substitute for the legal evidence. The
allegations against the petitioner cat not be said to be proved on that basis. The finding and conclusion of the revislonal authority is, thus, wholly
baseless, perverse and unsustainable.
9. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. The impugned order dated 10.9.03/16.1.04 is set aside. Since vehicle in question has already been released,
any condition or liability thereof by way of security or otherwise stands discharged.